Court dismisses petition on liquor license renewal & distance dispute. Factual issue, not writ jurisdiction. Petitioner can submit more evidence.

The court dismissed the petition regarding the renewal of a liquor license and the dispute over the distance requirement for a new liquor shop. It held that the determination of whether the new shop was within the required distance was a factual issue not suitable for writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was given the opportunity to submit additional evidence for the Commissioner to reconsider the matter.

---

---

Issues:
Renewal of liquor license, Distance requirement for new liquor shop, Dispute over distance measurement, Jurisdiction of the court

Renewal of liquor license:
The petitioner had been granted a license for a foreign liquor shop which was initially for the Excise year 2011-2012 and subsequently renewed for the Excise year 2012-2013. The contention was that the license had been further renewed for the Excise year 2013-2014. However, a new shop was created in the same area, leading to a grievance by the petitioner.

Distance requirement for new liquor shop:
The petitioner contended that as per a circular dated 15th February 2002, the distance of the new shop should not be less than 500 meters. The petitioner filed a representation before the Excise Commissioner, which was rejected. The dispute arose as to whether the new shop was within or beyond 500 meters from the existing shop.

Dispute over distance measurement:
After filing an objection, a report was sought from the Deputy Excise Commissioner, stating that the newly created shop was about 400 meters away. The Commissioner directed to shift the shop to a reasonable distance. The distance between the two shops was claimed to be more than 500 meters, as required by law. However, there was a disagreement over the actual distance in the rejoinder affidavit.

Jurisdiction of the court:
The court declined to interfere, stating that the determination of whether the newly created shop was within or beyond 500 meters was a question of fact that could not be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was given the option to file a fresh representation with evidence to demonstrate the distance for the Commissioner to consider and decide accordingly.

---